get_verification_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior of waiting and extracting, but it does not mention timeout behavior, what happens if no verification code is found, how filters are applied, or any side effects like polling or cleanup. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that blocks until an email arrives.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the relationship to wait_for_email is explained in one clause. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description tells the agent what the tool returns (extracted code) and its purpose, but it leaves out failure behavior and timeout semantics despite no output schema existing. An agent cannot anticipate errors like a missing code or expired timeout, which are common for this kind of tool. The high schema coverage covers parameters but not behavioral edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The schema already explains address, timeoutMs, fromContains, and subjectContains. The description adds context that the email is a verification/confirmation email and that extraction targets the code, which slightly enriches why those filters matter, but it does not add detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: wait for a verification/confirmation email and extract the code. It also explicitly names its relationship to the sibling 'wait_for_email' by calling itself a convenience tool that combines wait_for_email with code extraction, clearly distinguishing it from other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys when to use this tool: whenever a verification code is needed from an email, as it wraps wait_for_email plus extraction. It implies this is preferable for that use case, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if raw email content is needed, use get_message).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.